Morality or Obedience?

[carpedm9587]

But it the same thing...only in slow motion.

Our bodies are exact replicas of us from earlier time points in our lives, yet we are the same person. So in the same way...if God replaces all of the atoms in my body instantaneously, then I will continue to be the same person.

How fast or slow the process happens doesn't really matter.

This is, IMO, a fair observation. The body I have now apparently does not contain a single cell that it contained when I was 10, with the possible exception of my neural system (I'm not 100% sure on the cell replacement process in that system). So if this is true - does this mean that I am a different "person" than I was when I was 10?

[seer]

I don't think that there is a rational, immaterial "spirit" to be dead. So I guess the answer to the question would be yet.

So when Christ was dead in the grave there was nothing about him that was still alive those three days?

[carpedm9587]

I don't think that there is a rational, immaterial "spirit" to be dead. So I guess the answer to the question would be yet.

This is an ancient theological argument, IIRC. Jesus was believed to be "fully man" and yet "fully god" as well. Your answer suggests it is possible for god to die? Yet if that is NOT true and god could not actually die, then was the entire crucifixion and three days in the grave just a form of theater for the father "part" of the godhead? Or was the point the physical suffering and death of the human part?

It's an interesting dilemma.

[JonathanL]

But it the same thing...only in slow motion.

Our bodies are exact replicas of us from earlier time points in our lives, yet we are the same person. So in the same way...if God replaces all of the atoms in my body instantaneously, then I will continue to be the same person.

How fast or slow the process happens doesn't really matter.

You're still not getting the argument. The argument isn't that replacing all of the constituents of your body would make you a different person, the argument is that death implies the complete and irreversible destruction of the person if physicalism is true. If you die you don't exist anymore for God to resurrect you. You're gone forever, non-existent. There's nothing there for God to resurrect anymore.

[element771]

You're still not getting the argument. The argument isn't that replacing all of the constituents of your body would make you a different person, the argument is that death implies the complete and irreversible destruction of the person if physicalism is true. If you die you don't exist anymore for God to resurrect you. You're gone forever, non-existent. There's nothing there for God to resurrect anymore.

Atoms are replaced over a period of time, but we are the same person.

God restores the atoms in our body after a period of time of being dead, but we are the same person.

it is the same thing. The only difference is the timescale or temporal nature. Either way, replacement of atoms or physical resurrection...same person.

[carpedm9587]

You're still not getting the argument. The argument isn't that replacing all of the constituents of your body would make you a different person, the argument is that death implies the complete and irreversible destruction of the person if physicalism is true. If you die you don't exist anymore for God to resurrect you. You're gone forever, non-existent. There's nothing there for God to resurrect anymore.

Umm...First Law of Thermodynamics begs to differ. All of the matter and energy that makes up my body will continue to exist after I pass and this body decays (or is burned) away. Presumably, god would have the power to reconstruct it from its constituent elements? And if god creates "me" to begin with, what exactly is stopping him from recreating me?

Of course, there is the problem that some of my constituent elements were probably part of other people at some time, so we'll be fighting over specific pieces!

[JonathanL]

Atoms are replaced over a period of time, but we are the same person.

God restores the atoms in our body after a period of time of being dead, but we are the same person.

it is the same thing. The only difference is the timescale or temporal nature. Either way, replacement of atoms or physical resurrection...same person.

It's not the same thing at all. Even if your cells are constantly being broken down and replaced you're still alive and conscious throughout the whole process. There's always something there to keep the person existing. When you die and decompose there's nothing left that constitutes you as a person any more, it's just dead, lifeless, unconscious matter. God could create an exact replica of the body/person, but it would still not be the same person, it would simply be an identical clone walking around with the original's memories. The original would still not have been brought back to life. In fact, the original wouldn't even be dead, he would simply not even exist. If you're correct then God could create an exact replica of a person, down to the minutest detail, while that person is still alive and you'd have to maintain that the two are the exact same person.

[JonathanL]

Umm...First Law of Thermodynamics begs to differ. All of the matter and energy that makes up my body will continue to exist after I pass and this body decays (or is burned) away. Presumably, god would have the power to reconstruct it from its constituent elements? And if god creates "me" to begin with, what exactly is stopping him from recreating me?

God would have the power to reconstruct an identical body, the argument is that even if God reconstructed the body and gave it new life it wouldn't be the same person. It would be a completely new person with his/her own subjective first person experiences, completely separate from the original person. The original person ceased to exist with the death and destruction/decomposing of the original body, and there's no way to bring that person back, even for an omnipotent God.

[element771]

It's not the same thing at all. Even if your cells are constantly being broken down and replaced you're still alive and conscious throughout the whole process. There's always something there to keep the person existing. When you die and decompose there's nothing left that constitutes you as a person any more, it's just dead, lifeless, unconscious matter. God could create an exact replica of the body/person, but it would still not be the same person, it would simply be an identical clone walking around with the original's memories. The original would still not have been brought back to life. In fact, the original wouldn't even be dead, he would simply not even exist. If you're correct then God could create an exact replica of a person, down to the minutest detail, while that person is still alive and you'd have to maintain that the two are the exact same person.

I don't see the problem to be honest. If I suddenly popped out of existence only to pop back into existence 10 minutes later, I wouldn't consider myself to be a different person not would anyone else.

If physicalism is true, the memories, brain composition, and totality of past /present brain states are all I am right now anyway. If this is reassembled in the resurrection, I will still be me...it will just be a new body.

I also think that if God could bring me back to life, he could arrange the atoms in such away that I would be the same person irrespective any issues that we perceive. Although I don't really see any of these issues being a problem.

[carpedm9587]

God would have the power to reconstruct an identical body, the argument is that even if God reconstructed the body and gave it new life it wouldn't be the same person. It would be a completely new person with his/her own subjective first person experiences, completely separate from the original person. The original person ceased to exist with the death and destruction/decomposing of the original body, and there's no way to bring that person back, even for an omnipotent God.

An interesting POV, for sure. So in the hypothetical age of the matter transporter, if a person were to go through it, we would be continuously murdering the traveler and cloning their essence, thereby creating a duplicate, but different person. Correct?

[element771]

An interesting POV, for sure. So in the hypothetical age of the matter transporter, if a person were to go through it, we would be continuously murdering the traveler and cloning their essence, thereby creating a duplicate, but different person. Correct?

Have you not seen the Prestige?

Chrawnus,

What if I popped out of existence and popped back into existence some time later? Am I not the same person?

Do you consider any temporal interruption in consciousness to be a problem for continuous existence?

[JonathanL]

I don't see the problem to be honest. If I suddenly popped out of existence only to pop back into existence 10 minutes later, I wouldn't consider myself to be a different person not would anyone else.

I would. If you, as you put it, "popped out of existence" you wouldn't exist anymore, so you couldn't "pop back into existence" anymore. That's what being non-existent means. There would be nothing there (since it would be non-existent) to "pop" back. Your statement about you "popping back into existence" would require you to be simultaneously existing and non-existing, which would be a logical impossibility.

If physicalism is true, the memories, brain composition, and totality of past /present brain states are all I am right now anyway. If this is reassembled in the resurrection, I will still be me...it will just be a new body.

Well that's exactly the problem. If the things you listed above is the totality of the person then destruction of these things would mean that the person ceases to exist. It wouldn't be "reassembly" of the same "memories, brain composition and totality of past/present brain states", it would be a "replication", a "copy". The original person wouldn't be alive and conscious to experience what the replica experiences. They would be two separate persons, each with their own independent thoughts and experiences.

I also think that if God could bring me back to life, he could arrange the atoms in such away that I would be the same person irrespective any issues that we perceive. Although I don't really see any of these issues being a problem.

It wouldn't matter in which way God would "arrange the atoms", they still wouldn't constitute you. You ceased to exist when you died.



And in any case, I don't really see why you even believe in physicalism. There's not even any good philosophical, scientific, or biblical reasons to believe that physicalism is true.

[JonathanL]

Chrawnus,

What if I popped out of existence and popped back into existence some time later? Am I not the same person?

Well no, the person that came into being after you ceased to exist wouldn't be you. If you cease to exist there wouldn't be any "you" to pop back into existence anymore. What you're describing is a logical impossibility.

Do you consider any temporal interruption in consciousness to be a problem for continuous existence?

For physicalism, maybe. Fortunately for me I'm not a physicalist, so I don't have that problem.

[JonathanL]

An interesting POV, for sure. So in the hypothetical age of the matter transporter, if a person were to go through it, we would be continuously murdering the traveler and cloning their essence, thereby creating a duplicate, but different person. Correct?

Yes, assuming physicalism is true.

[element771]

It wouldn't matter in which way God would "arrange the atoms", they still wouldn't constitute you. You ceased to exist when you died.

And in any case, I don't really see why you even believe in physicalism. There's not even any good philosophical, scientific, or biblical reasons to believe that physicalism is true.

I just don't agree.

There is nothing special about the atoms that compose me at the moment. So for God to reassemble atoms to recapitulate my brain states, I don't see a problem.

What is the scientific evidence for the soul?